this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
667 points (97.2% liked)

Sysadmin

7713 readers
5 users here now

A community dedicated to the profession of IT Systems Administration

No generic Lemmy issue posts please! Posts about Lemmy belong in one of these communities:
!lemmy@lemmy.ml
!lemmyworld@lemmy.world
!lemmy_support@lemmy.ml
!support@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm so absolutely sick of it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Years ago I had been out of multiplayer gaming for a number of years and had really only had experiences with PC games, where multiplayer is/was just this standard thing. You already bought the game, playing multiplayer with other people is just a thing you can hop on and do whenever you want for free (provided there's other people to play). I owned consoles, but never played multiplayer games on them, so never dealt with game passes or anything like that.

When my oldest son started getting into gaming, we wanted to play couch co-op on an Xbox game, but then ran into a problem with it requiring an Xbox game pass for a co-op mode (it had been couch co-op in previous games from the series; basically a horde mode where you go against bots, so no reason to go online). Requiring a game pass for that just seemed like a shit way to get more subscriptions.

When I complained about it on Reddit, people swarmed to tell me what a jackass I was and that of course you have to subscribe to play with game pass, like what kind of world was I living in where I expected free multiplayer gaming? Apparently I hadn't realized what a golden age I had lived in when something like free multiplayer gaming was just a standard thing.

[–] thantik@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

That's been my experience as well, the dogpiling crap. I even had someone argue "How are businesses supposed to stay alive if they don't charge monthly!" -- and they couldn't agree that the business could create new IP, or create new games, instead of sitting on the same game for 10+ years.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Apparently I hadn’t realized what a golden age I had lived in when something like free multiplayer gaming was just a standard thing

This was literally never a thing on consoles, so maybe that's the issue?

Multiplayer gaming was and generally still is totally free on PC, but consoles don't have the infrastructure to pull from and have charged since they launched the feature.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The issue there is that the game co-op always goes through their servers.

Games that don't run their multiplayer that way don't have this issue, but as multiplayer continues to transition to remote play rather than couch co-op it will likely continue to spread.

[–] somethingsnappy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You said that (free co-op) was literally never a thing on consoles. It has been a thing since Pong.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I assumed that someone reading this conversation would apply context and thus understand what I was talking about.

[–] Isycius@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I remember Dreamcast, PS2, and Xbox's online service not being charged...?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Xbox live was absolutely a paid service

At E3 2002 Microsoft unveiled its plans to establish an online gaming service for the Xbox called Xbox Live. The membership fee was set at $49.99 a year, which is what it still costs today. Microsoft was adamant about getting users online quickly and easily

Dreamcast doesn't really count as it was more of just a modem, and PS2 initially had no online capabilities. I still get wistful over what Dreamcast could have been.

Nevertheless, due to lack of widespread broadband adoption at the time, the Dreamcast shipped with only a dial-up modem while a later-released broadband adapter was neither widely supported nor widely available. Downloadable content was available, though limited in size due to the narrowband connection and the size limitations of a memory card.[23] The PlayStation 2 did not initially ship with built-in networking capabilities

[–] Isycius@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't remember basic multiplayer access was paid service for Xbox, but that maybe me confusing things with Playstation 3's PSN not requiring it. Also, doesn't count? Really? So if it doesn't agree with you, it doesn't count?

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Dreamcast had no servers to play from. It has an internal modem. So yes, that's not what we're talking about and doesn't count

Do you understand the difference in that technology? Genuinely asking here - do you know what a modem is?

[–] Isycius@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You mean there exist online game that doesn't have any host at the end point? So games like Phatasy Star Online runs on magic? I'm genuinely asking here.

So if you connect with modem, it isn't multiplayer? If you connect third-party servers, it isn't multiplayer? Connection doesn't care what hardware is present at end point - all it care is that it satisfies authentication then following byte stream is correctly formatted. The fact that it is console doesn't magically make it require different kind of infrastructure from PC to begin with unless someone forces to.

So what is definition of console multiplayer for you anyway? It clearly seems to be not "A session of a game where multiple players are involved locally or via internet" based on what you are saying so far.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

We're discussing console play multiplayer, which generally involves things like signing into servers for matchmaking

The Dreamcast allowed point to point networking, which is radically different.

This isn't some weird definition I made up, this is the context of the thread. I don't know why it's so important to you keep to flailing toward being right here but this is just a meaningless discussion at this point

[–] Isycius@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I'm just baffled by someone insisting absurd definition to defend unnecessary enshittification while using all the technical terms and how they function incorrect.

Also, context of this particular thread started with initial comment that PC multiplayer is free, but Xbox online multiplayer (Not any other feature) - which is, identical in its technological basis and requirement - need payment. Then you simply asserted that such functionality was never free on consoles. I don't remember original Xbox requiring me any payment to access XIII's multiplayer mode, but memory is memory, so with no Xbox to test with, I will just accept that point was incorrect on my part.

Then you went off-track stating that method of connection to server or time of implementing technology makes it so that those doesn't count as multiplayer on console. Followed by arguments that is not even possible to do.

If there is anything that I misunderstood from the context is that I just presumed that you were being careful with your claim. Upon reading again, I was indeed very wrong on that. PS3's PSN and Nintendo exists. Consoles always had infrastructure to pull from, the very same infrastructure to PC multiplayer. Companies simply decided to charge more because they could.